What is Philosophy in the form of ethics (morals) other than...

[Paradoxum]

Problem is that reasonable people come to different conclusions.

That's why we continue to discuss it until we come to the same conclusion.

I agree in all but one point. Without a unquestionable authority, we will run into contradicting morals

God doesn't help at all. If God can tell us what the right morals are, then we don't need God, since we can figure out what's right on our own. If there is no right answer, then God doesn't help, because his opinion is then no less subjective than anyone else's.

To you perhaps, but it does not have a basis outside of your opinion.

But it does have a basis outside my opinion... reason. I'm not saying murder is wrong just because I feel like it... in the same why I like chocolate just because I feel like it.

These are all good and reasonable. My Bible teaches the golden rule too. However, if you're not omniscient and I'm not omniscient, neither of us can guarantee anyone that our universal ethics are any good.

It isn't exactly the golden rule, but it's pretty close. The Bible includes the golden rule, but it has a load of other immoral rubbish that opposes the golden rule.

I know I'm fallible... it isn't psychologically necessary for me to have infallible certain knowledge. There is no such knowledge, and we just have to work with what we have.

However, if there were to be a god who perfectly knew right and wrong, and decreed right and wrong, then we would know for sure that there is an actual source of ethical norms outside of our own opinions. Take the god out of the equation, and it is just a bunch of intelligent people being opinionated coming to different conclusions.

Just because people disagree it doesn't mean there isn't a correct opinion to be had. You said my moral basis was reasonable, and gave no arguments against it... so I again stand by my morality.

God doesn't help, since his commands could just be opinions like ours. Only if there is a reasonable basis for morality do God's commands carry weight... but if there is a reasonable basis, then we can discover that for ourselves without God.

Of course if there were a God to explain what he understood about morality, then that would make things easier, but that hasn't happened. The Bible doesn't explain morality, it just gives commands... it doesn't explain why the rules are correct; it blatantly disregards the golden rule. Also, there is a bunch of immoral and false things in it.

How do you know, how can you ask a fetus that does talk? Fetuses start thinking and feeling when they are less than a couple of pounds. At which point is the divider?

Based on what we know about it, it doesn't have self-consciousness. A fetus is obviously less mentally developed than most animals that we are fine with killing.

If you are okay with killing animals, I don't see how you can have a moral problem with abortion.

And that's fine. The point is you never can, because you are just a human being, none of us have the answers to all these things, we just have opinions.

If you just mean that we could be incorrect, sure. But some opinions are more reasonable than others.

Yeah, the Golden Rule, it's 2,000 years old.

Probably older.

 

[abacabb3]

That's why we continue to discuss it until we come to the same conclusion.

It will never happened, man has disagreed on ethics for all of human history, it will never change.

God doesn't help at all. If God can tell us what the right morals are, then we don't need God, since we can figure out what's right on our own.

What? We can't figure it out ethics on our own that everyone can agree to, because people have never fully agreed to such matters. This is the flaw with grounding ethic's authority with man. If you ground ethic's authority even in an imaginary god, it at least stands to reason that the supposed authority stands above the shoulders of men, who have not and cannot settle the question for all of history.

If there is no right answer, then God doesn't help, because his opinion is then no less subjective than anyone else's.

Yeah, it doesn't prove the existence of God, but my point is that unless ethics are based on an authority higher than man, they don't have authority, because man has not proved to be a consistent and reliable witness on this matter.

But it does have a basis outside my opinion... reason.

Again, if reasonable people have come to opposing conclusions for all time on matters of ethics, then on what track record do we have that reason will solve it in the future?

I'm not saying murder is wrong just because I feel like it... in the same why I like chocolate just because I feel like it.

This is not even an assertion. You're saying you don't feel something is bad because of what you like and dislike--- then the assertion stops. What's your point?

It isn't exactly the golden rule, but it's pretty close. The Bible includes the golden rule, but it has a load of other immoral rubbish that opposes the golden rule.

Okay, but it is still the golden rule, but on what basis is the golden rule any good?

I know I'm fallible... it isn't psychologically necessary for me to have infallible certain knowledge. There is no such knowledge, and we just have to work with what we have.

Yes, so you can make a workable set of ethics yes, but they won't actually be real, there's a difference.

Just because people disagree it doesn't mean there isn't a correct opinion to be had. You said my moral basis was reasonable, and gave no arguments against it... so I again stand by my morality.

Yes, but ethics are not empirically testable, so it is ultimately all opinions, and I don't see on what basis we can elevate an opinion to an eternal truth without having a god, law of nature, or something firm and above fallible man to ascribe it to.

God doesn't help, since his commands could just be opinions like ours.

True. Or, the god can evil. Then, we would have absolutely no way of knowing at all.

Of course if there were a God to explain what he understood about morality, then that would make things easier, but that hasn't happened. The Bible doesn't explain morality, it just gives commands... it doesn't explain why the rules are correct; it blatantly disregards the golden rule. Also, there is a bunch of immoral and false things in it.

I see where you are coming from, but as I said before that reasonable people disagree, I would have to disagree with this. I do believe the Bible contains a consistent set of morals that all derive themselves from God, who despite the evil we know we all do as mercy on us if we place our trust in Him.

But, I know you don't believe that, so we will just have to agree to disagree. Plus, I have no logical basis in which I can prove it to you.

A fetus is obviously less mentally developed than most animals that we are fine with killing.

It depends on the age of the fetus. My brother's wife gave birth to babies after 5 months. They are not even in the third trimester. They act very human.

Probably older.

Actually, no. Historically, the negative golden rule existed (don't do onto others as you wouldn't want done to you) but the first time the positive golden rule was invoked was by Jesus Christ historically.

 

[quatona]

Not at all. It is just the only way in which morals have any real basis outside of people just throwing their opinions around.

Except that merely claiming there to be such a "real basis outside of people" doesn´t make it so.
And except that subjective opinions about the existence of an alleged objective authority don´t help solving the subjectivity-issue.

 

[Paradoxum]

It will never happened, man has disagreed on ethics for all of human history, it will never change.

I see no reason to think it will never change. Humans live without civilisation for thousands of years, but then things eventually progressed. Just because things have been similar for a long time doesn't mean things can't change.

What? We can't figure it out ethics on our own that everyone can agree to, because people have never fully agreed to such matters. This is the flaw with grounding ethic's authority with man. If you ground ethic's authority even in an imaginary god, it at least stands to reason that the supposed authority stands above the shoulders of men, who have not and cannot settle the question for all of history.

I don't see why a god would have any more authority... nor do I see why ethics needs any authority.

Maybe no everyone will agree, but that's not a flaw with ethics, it's just the state of reality.

Yeah, it doesn't prove the existence of God, but my point is that unless ethics are based on an authority higher than man, they don't have authority, because man has not proved to be a consistent and reliable witness on this matter.

I don't see why ethics needs any authority. Either agree or disagree... be an empathetic decent person or don't.

A God doesn't help since God clearly doesn't speak to us. You might claim the Bible is from God, but then that's a human claim... fallible like all others. You claiming that the Bible is from God, has no more 'authority' than me claiming my morality is tending towards being correct.

Again, if reasonable people have come to opposing conclusions for all time on matters of ethics, then on what track record do we have that reason will solve it in the future?

Just because something hasn't happened in the past, that doesn't mean it wont happen in the future. But then I'm an optimist.

This is not even an assertion. You're saying you don't feel something is bad because of what you like and dislike--- then the assertion stops. What's your point?

Saying that M is true for reason X, Y, and Z, isn't the same as saying M is true because I feel like it. Not all opinions are equal.

Okay, but it is still the golden rule, but on what basis is the golden rule any good?

I don't know, I'm not trying to defend the golden rule... you're the one who keeps bringing it up. Refer to what I said if you want to question my morality.

What I said was this:

"1) Morality is partly a way of acting.
2) Morality is a universal good or bad, that applies to all people.
3) A universal good or bad, that applies to all people, would be considering the subjective good or bad or all individuals equally.
(eg: My wish not to die is equal to your wish not to die).

5) One of the most important parts of this morality would be respecting peoples choices over their sphere of sovereignty (eg: It is their choice what they do with their body and mind... this would disallow things like murder, rape, and assault)."

Yes, so you can make a workable set of ethics yes, but they won't actually be real, there's a difference.

Actually my aim is to understand real ethics. Though it isn't as if morals are something floating in the sky.

Yes, but ethics are not empirically testable, so it is ultimately all opinions, and I don't see on what basis we can elevate an opinion to an eternal truth without having a god, law of nature, or something firm and above fallible man to ascribe it to.

I don't want to elevate anything to eternal truth. It's unsafe to make something unquestionable.

I see where you are coming from, but as I said before that reasonable people disagree, I would have to disagree with this. I do believe the Bible contains a consistent set of morals that all derive themselves from God, who despite the evil we know we all do as mercy on us if we place our trust in Him.

I know you disagree, but that's why we discuss things.

The Bible gives the golden rule, but it also says that sex outside marriage is wrong. Sex outside marriage doesn't violate the golden rule though.

The Bible also says that God commanded genocide, murder, and allowed slavery. Again, inconsistent with the golden rule. That isn't love and respect for others as people.

It depends on the age of the fetus. My brother's wife gave birth to babies after 5 months. They are not even in the third trimester. They act very human.

They act human? Do they talk about how nice the weather is, or do they just wiggle around and make noises? No fetus is more mentally developed than animals we kill by the millions.

Actually, no. Historically, the negative golden rule existed (don't do onto others as you wouldn't want done to you) but the first time the positive golden rule was invoked was by Jesus Christ historically.

If you say so. Both the negative and positive are good in their own ways, though both have problems.

From this, it does look like India had a similar phrase before Christ though:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#India

 

[abacabb3]

Except that merely claiming there to be such a "real basis outside of people" doesn´t make it so.
And except that subjective opinions about the existence of an alleged objective authority don´t help solving the subjectivity-issue.

Yes, exactly. Saying it is so, doens't make it so. But, if it is so, it makes it so. As is, if all there is, is us, then there is no real basis for it.

 

[abacabb3]

I see no reason to think it will never change. Humans live without civilisation for thousands of years, but then things eventually progressed. Just because things have been similar for a long time doesn't mean things can't change.

But you are presuming progression until uniformity of opinion is met, which is like dreaming of unicorns, ain't never going to happen.

Not all opinions are equal.

But opinions that cannot be established empirically remain conjecture, your morals are nothing more than conjecture.

I don't want to elevate anything to eternal truth. It's unsafe to make something unquestionable.

So, you don't actually believe anything is really true or really false.

The Bible gives the golden rule, but it also says that sex outside marriage is wrong. Sex outside marriage doesn't violate the golden rule though.

More later

 

[Paradoxum]

But you are presuming progression until uniformity of opinion is met, which is like dreaming of unicorns, ain't never going to happen.

Not everyone will agree, but a majority possibly could.

But opinions that cannot be established empirically remain conjecture, your morals are nothing more than conjecture.

Reason is more than conjecture.

So, you don't actually believe anything is really true or really false.

I do, but I accept I am fallible.

More later

Okay.

 

[quatona]

Yes, exactly. Saying it is so, doens't make it so. But, if it is so, it makes it so.

Same goes for any possible basis that isn´t a God.

As is, if all there is, is us, then there is no real basis for it.

If all there is is us, there is no need for a basis beyond us - it doesn´t get any more "real" than us.

 

[abacabb3]

Same goes for any possible basis that isn´t a God.

Well if there isn't a god, then the basis for there to be certainty when it pertains to morality goes out the window. Otherwise, all we have is very good conjecture.

If all there is is us, there is no need for a basis beyond us - it doesn´t get any more "real" than us.

And in the real world, we know there is a lot of uncertainty.

 

[quatona]

Well if there isn't a god, then the basis for there to be certainty when it pertains to morality goes out the window. Otherwise, all we have is very good conjecture.

You would have to explain
a. how the existence of a god would provide "basis for there to be certainty", and
b. how any other basis for morality can´t.
And finally, how a "basis for there to be certainty when it pertains to morality" means any practical progress when the existence (and also the nature) itself of this basis is uncertain to us.

And in the real world, we know there is a lot of uncertainty.

So with a god existing there would be a basis for certainty, while in the real world there is uncertainty? That´s an interesting sequence of statements, for sure.

 

[abacabb3]

You would have to explain
a. how the existence of a god would provide "basis for there to be certainty", and
b. how any other basis for morality can´t.
And finally, how a "basis for there to be certainty when it pertains to morality" means any practical progress when the existence (and also the nature) itself of this basis is uncertain to us.





So with a god existing there would be a basis for certainty, while in the real world there is uncertainty? That´s an interesting sequence of statements, for sure.

Let me return to this, I will answer definitively.

 

[abacabb3]

You would have to explain
a. how the existence of a god would provide "basis for there to be certainty", and
b. how any other basis for morality can´t.
And finally, how a "basis for there to be certainty when it pertains to morality" means any practical progress when the existence (and also the nature) itself of this basis is uncertain to us.

B. Morality that appeals to an authority anywhere that starts with man or below suffers the fatal flaw of either one, not being smart enough to affirm ethics as an idea (animals for example), and two, being a human to begin with. Being that men cannot come to singular conclusions and differ over the issue, because it cannot be empirically tested and verified, ethics remains and thereby must remain a matter of opinion.

Thus, any other basis in morality essentially is not a basis at all and throws all morals into doubt, ultimately.

A. Because there is not a workable basis in reality, we need to look to a theoretical basis. Being that it cannot be extrapolated from empiricism, this rules out an origin in nature. Thus, the origin if there is one at all (because ethics can simply not exist and be a fairy tale) must be in the supernatural, hence, the realm of the gods. The supernatural can theoretically reveal truths, such as moral ones, that cannot be ascertained using empiricism. Hence, if there is any morality that is real and not merely opinion, it must be revealed from the supernatural realm.

So with a god existing there would be a basis for certainty, while in the real world there is uncertainty? That´s an interesting sequence of statements, for sure.

For things that cannot be empirically verified, yes. My honest opinion is that if there isn't a god, our whole existence is essentially an illusion and our own consciousness is a result of biochemical reactions that hold absolutely no value, as value is just a made up idea in the biochemical processes of someone's brain anyway.

 

[Received]

Other than an attempt at deciding or making a judgment call(s) (determining, trying to work out) of what systems of societies or personal laws (set of "rules") (a debate over a standard) that we should all unify in following?

That's a deontologist understanding of ethics, and there are two other big branches: consequentialism and virtue ethics. Deontology is probably the most popular in Western society (given Anscombe's claim that deontology is historically rooted in the rule following associated with Judaism and Christianity), but I think if you push it far enough that virtue ethics is the way to go, which involves appealing to the character of the individual as more important than the rules he follows.

Deontology is all about which rules we should follow, whereas virtue ethics is about what types of persons (what types of characters) we should be. So a deontologist would say something like we should never lie in any situation, whereas the virtue ethicist would use judgment in each situation to figure out which action best fits with virtuous character.

Anyways, that's all an oversimplification, and I think I'm speaking more of metaethics than ethics, but I don't really think you can speak of the latter without the former with the question the OP raises.

 

[Mediate]

Other than an attempt at deciding or making a judgment call(s) (determining, trying to work out) of what systems of societies or personal laws (set of "rules") (a debate over a standard) that we should all unify in following?

Like every philosophical question that asks a definition based on opinion, the opinions which are given as answers will simply be opinions, thus vary tremendously. Like all choices, your adherance to whatever specific definition you believe will be nothing more than a choice, an individualism of sorts.

Mine is that ethics start with the mind, and their cornerstone is empathy, compassion. Without these two traits, I wouldn't consider something ethical. also, for me, the ethical mental process is entirely dependant upon the individual, the time and circumstance.

There cannot be a universal ethical rule that is one-size-fits-all for every single situation a person ever comes across.

However, there can be a universal 'ethical mindset' whereby an individual tries to make the compassionate choice from empathy and understanding in every given situation.

Ethical behaviour is not so much about a set of rules as about a mindset, a perspective, or a 'spirit'.

Just like utter abidance by laws and rules cannot cover up a flawed moral compass, the same way, a person cannot be ethical if ethics are solely based on socially conditioned perceptions of right and wrong. There has to be a considerable backdrop for ethical behaviour other than 'because the law says so'.

The best backdrop, the best motive, I have ever come across is empathy. 'Consider others as yourself'.

 

[theophilus777]

Yeah, too bad that your god (while being great at putting up broad unrealistic and unmeetable standards) is leaving us to our own devices when it comes to real life moral questions and dilemmas.

Why is this too bad? You would prefer a dictator?

Also, these unrealistic and unmeetable standards stuff is what is known as Judaism. Am I signed in to Jewish forums and I didn't realize it?

 

[brightlights]

Ethics is an attempt to use reason to understand what is moral and why. I'm not sure if that answers the question.

(You post is a little hard to read).

How can reason discern moral truth?

 

[brightlights]

Like every philosophical question that asks a definition based on opinion, the opinions which are given as answers will simply be opinions, thus vary tremendously. Like all choices, your adherance to whatever specific definition you believe will be nothing more than a choice, an individualism of sorts.

Mine is that ethics start with the mind, and their cornerstone is empathy, compassion. Without these two traits, I wouldn't consider something ethical. also, for me, the ethical mental process is entirely dependant upon the individual, the time and circumstance.

There cannot be a universal ethical rule that is one-size-fits-all for every single situation a person ever comes across.

However, there can be a universal 'ethical mindset' whereby an individual tries to make the compassionate choice from empathy and understanding in every given situation.

Ethical behaviour is not so much about a set of rules as about a mindset, a perspective, or a 'spirit'.

Just like utter abidance by laws and rules cannot cover up a flawed moral compass, the same way, a person cannot be ethical if ethics are solely based on socially conditioned perceptions of right and wrong. There has to be a considerable backdrop for ethical behaviour other than 'because the law says so'.

The best backdrop, the best motive, I have ever come across is empathy. 'Consider others as yourself'.

This isn't far from the Christian perspective. We would say that the backdrop is love and empathy is part of love. Love your neighbor as yourself. In Christianity love is externalized in God's law. Whoever loves will naturally obey the 10 commandments and anyone disobeying a commandment is not living in love.

We would also add the gospel into the mix. "Love others" in itself is good and true but it's unfortunately powerless. Telling a selfish person to love others only tells them what they should do, it doesn't give them the power to do it. The gospel, on the other hand, does. The gospel teaches us about how God has loved us by giving us his son. When we meditate on the gospel and allow it to affect our hearts we become grafted in to the God who is love. This and this alone enables us to truly love others and have empathy.

 

[Mediate]

This isn't far from the Christian perspective. We would say that the backdrop is love and empathy is part of love. Love your neighbor as yourself. In Christianity love is externalized in God's law. Whoever loves will naturally obey the 10 commandments and anyone disobeying a commandment is not living in love.

We would also add the gospel into the mix. "Love others" in itself is good and true but it's unfortunately powerless. Telling a selfish person to love others only tells them what they should do, it doesn't give them the power to do it. The gospel, on the other hand, does. The gospel teaches us about how God has loved us by giving us his son. When we meditate on the gospel and allow it to affect our hearts we become grafted in to the God who is love. This and this alone enables us to truly love others and have empathy.

We've always known that motive inspires action, and motive is another of the things unique to individuals. Most moralities exist on the idea of totally objective, permanent realities, but these realities are illusions.

An object exists, we see that object, our seeing is perceived by our sixth sense (mind), that sixth sense relates objects to past events, produces a subjective and unique feeling, that feeling is related to past feelings and experiences, which causes connection, which often reinforces our past experiences and brings us to form 'beliefs', which because of our clinging to them colour our perceptions so that our 'self' feels established like an identity - our outlook is conceptualized from within.

In our self, we delude ourselves into thinking that subjective perception is an accurate depiction of reality and thus we feel we must attach to this self, which in itself separates us from others, like we own a unique Earth all of our own.

We perceive permanency and 'truth' where there are only condition, circumstance, cause and effect.

This is uncomfortable, because objective 'realities' then fluctuate and change with subjective experience. Nothing stays the same, and so we cling to fleeting things which bring artificial, impermanent joy, between periods of suffering.

However, the suffering we inflict upon ourselves only exists as a result of this clinging desire, because without clinging to fleeting joy, there is no expectancy of permanency, thus a person accepts the impermanence of things and realizes that the true 'joy' doesn't come from the owning of objective things in the world but from rooting up the clinging to them.

If there is no clinging to temporal joy, no expectation for its permanency, then there is no pain when things change.

This isn't an outlook of irreverence, but of acceptance. In accepting these things we realize our mind is the governor of our experience - our experience is not the governor of our mind.

In realizing the temporal and fleeting nature of all things, and the reality of the suffering it causes, we can engage the reality of impermanence and endeavour to root up suffering in all its forms.

OF course, many will not share our motives, but this is only because of their own conditionings and circumstances, mental processes and how their perceptions colour the world around them.

Empathy and consideration for those without empathy or consideration is, when all is considered, the most moral route.

 

[quatona]

Why is this too bad?

Well, considering the claims that we need a God to tell good from bad, God doesn´t seem to match the expectations.

You would prefer a dictator?

What´s that got to do with anything?
But since you asked: By which definition of "dictator" would God not be a dictator?

 

[Eudaimonist]

How can you justify universal morality unless you can also justify that your own personal opinions are the standards of the universe?

One's own personal opinions will never be the standards of the universe. However, one's own personal opinions may be correct in ascertaining the measure of goodness for human beings.

There isn't an universal morality.

You may be correct about that in that morality is a human conceptual construct, and human beings may develop their concepts somewhat differently than each other.

However, if there is an objective basis for morality -- if the good that makes certain elements of character more desirable than others is rooted in human nature -- then a proper morality isn't something arbitrary. There are likely to be themes that will run throughout different reasonably-accurate moral creations.

So, what are your universal ethics? Is abortion right or wrong? Are children supposed to honor their parents? Are people to tell the truth at all times? You really think that you can answer these questions definitively so we can all be convinced that your answer is best?

Yes, but not in all cases. Having some idea of the objectivity behind ethics isn't the same thing as being able to easily answer just any ethical question. Some questions really are difficult to answer. That doesn't mean that there aren't relatively easy questions to answer.


eudaimonia,

Mark